Having one drink with friends is incredibly pleasant. You are with pondlife because you are both cretins who drink to get blootered and can't comprehend anything else.

Driving to a nice French restaurant and having a small red at the start of your meal is a charming way to enjoy an evening, a few hours later after food, table water and good company, driving home completely safely. Now you have to wait until the following afternoon before its legally out your system.

Not surprised to learn Scott needs a small red to function socially.

(10-12-2015, 03:54 PM)S.J. Wrote: Having one drink with friends is incredibly pleasant. You are with pondlife because you are both cretins who drink to get blootered and can't comprehend anything else.

Driving to a nice French restaurant and having a small red at the start of your meal is a charming way to enjoy an evening, a few hours later after food, table water and good company, driving home completely safely. Now you have to wait until the following afternoon before its legally out your system.

WalterMak.txt

I don't see what the problem with a small beer or small wine is really, but since the change I wouldn't have one as it's not worth it. Acey is right that judging things the next day is very hard, and if I wasn't right in the city and not needing to drive anywhere at the weekend, i would get one of those wee breathalysers.

As for Pondlife's comparison between these boys doing 90, while off their chops on a mix up of all sorts, with someone having a wine then driving, scott is right, they're so far apart that trying to compare the two just infantilises the debate.

A complete change in attitude is required. I think that is happening on the whole wrt drink driving but perhaps a new generation, who have forsaken drink for drugs are becoming the main problem now. I don't know, I don't have the statistics, and there probably isn't even much of a body of evidence to suggest that drugs are now a major factor (not that they weren't also part of the problem a generation or two ago but in all likelihood they were a minor part of the overall ratio) in DUI RTAs.

People need to realise that driving a vehicle requires responsibility, even when sober, and that should you cross the boundaries where your motor functions are altered you run the risk of causing mayhem. I don't want to go down the route of drawing comparisons with other weapons but in reality that is what a car can become; you're knowingly committing manslaughter. What does that mean in legalspeak Acey?

(10-12-2015, 03:54 PM)S.J. Wrote: Having one drink with friends is incredibly pleasant. You are with pondlife because you are both cretins who drink to get blootered and can't comprehend anything else.

Driving to a nice French restaurant and having a small red at the start of your meal is a charming way to enjoy an evening, a few hours later after food, table water and good company, driving home completely safely. Now you have to wait until the following afternoon before its legally out your system.

Why do you need to drive? Selfish cunt.

And do you think this wee middle class fantasy works across the board? Give folk an inch and they take a mile.

(10-12-2015, 03:56 PM)Francis Begbie Wrote: WalterMak.txt

My droit penal tutor back in the day bemoaned the anglo-saxonisation of the drink driving laws in france, saying she couldn't see what was wrong with an aperitif, a shared bottle of red, a healthy meal, with bread, and a digestif, with a coffee, before driving home.

Wont make a blind bit of difference - need more shock to make the consequences blatantly clear.

(10-12-2015, 03:46 PM)S.J. Wrote: Comparing having 1 glass of wine to boys rallying about off their heed on eckies is why there will never be a serious, grown up conversation about what is a safe level to have a socialable drink and then drive.

Because unfortunately many, including good upstanding citizens, don't have the wherewithal to comprehend their immediate environs, and the synergy of other factors like tiredness, peer pressure to have 'Just one wafer thin mint, etc.

Just don't drink and drive - get a taxi, take public transport, or get a friend to drive (take turns).

We almost knocked the local plod off his bicycle one night in Barra. He was fucking burst. One time one of the locals had to give him a lift home after he fell of his bike and cut all his face.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-34508269

Cecil the lion: No charges for Walter Palmer, says Zimbabwe

The twitteratti will be raging

(10-12-2015, 03:56 PM)Walter Sobchak Wrote: I don't see what the problem with a small beer or small wine is really, but since the change I wouldn't have one as it's not worth it. Acey is right that judging things the next day is very hard, and if I wasn't right in the city and not needing to drive anywhere at the weekend, i would get one of those wee breathalysers.

As for Pondlife's comparison between these boys doing 90, while off their chops on a mix up of all sorts, with someone having a wine then driving, scott is right, they're so far apart that trying to compare the two just infantilises the debate.

There was no direct comparisons between the eccied chavs and Mags having a cheeky wee red on a friday evening after work having spent the week stealing million off pensioners.  Scott simply (like Mak tries on most occasions) took the opp to twist the dialogue so he can forward his cretins chat on the nice guys in here, like me (not sure how Partridge got that treatment, ).  Of course there are a few sheep around too.  

The Twitterati has the attention span of a sleepy goldfish. I doubt they even remember Kony Je Suis Charlie Pig fucker Cecil.

(10-12-2015, 03:56 PM)Francis Begbie Wrote: WalterMak.txt

It's a sign (yet another sign) of my failure on this site that after all my pretentious ramblings, Walter is still listed before me here.

(10-12-2015, 04:29 PM)Makween Wrote: It's a sign (yet another sign) of my failure on this site that after all my pretentious ramblings, Walter is still listed before me here.

So true; MakWalter sounds dope. Possie to Mak.\; well done m8.

If I was being honest, it was because first name surname, but let's go with your version instead

Dont drive so not an issue. And I only drink to get wrecked and kill memories

(10-12-2015, 03:51 PM)Francis Begbie Wrote: I know the Scottish Parliament went through a consultation on drug driving limits a couple of years ago, but is there any progress on that? I am under the impression that it's harder to prosecute drug drivers in the absence of a limit, is that right Acey?

I'd agree, in the sense that with drink driving you're most often dealing with a very simple question: were you over the limit or not? "I thought I was ok" isn't a defence, and the crown don't need to prove any impairment in your ability to drive (which makes it funny how, overnight, an alcohol level that used to be absolutely 100% fine and above criticism became SCUM SELFISH DRINK DRIVER POTENTIAL KILLER stuff).

Technically you can be high as a kite behind the wheel, but if the crown can't prove impairment you'll be fine. Obviously in practise there are ways and means to infer this from the circumstances, but at least it's a bit trickier in terms of evidence.

The difference is between s4 and s5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, if you're interested.

(10-12-2015, 03:57 PM)pondlife Wrote: People need to realise that driving a vehicle requires responsibility, even when sober, and that should you cross the boundaries where your motor functions are altered you run the risk of causing mayhem.  I don't want to go down the route of drawing comparisons with other weapons but in reality that is what a car can become; you're knowingly committing manslaughter.  What does that mean in legalspeak Acey?

It means absolutely nothing, pondlife.

(10-12-2015, 04:37 PM)Acey Wrote: I'd agree, in the sense that with drink driving you're most often dealing with a very simple question: were you over the limit or not? "I thought I was ok" isn't a defence, and the crown don't need to prove any impairment in your ability to drive (which makes it funny how, overnight, an alcohol level that used to be absolutely 100% fine and above criticism became SCUM SELFISH DRINK DRIVER POTENTIAL KILLER stuff).

Technically you can be high as a kite behind the wheel, but if the crown can't prove impairment you'll be fine. Obviously in practise there are ways and means to infer this from the circumstances, but at least it's a bit trickier in terms of evidence.

The difference is between s4 and s5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, if you're interested.


It means absolutely nothing, pondlife.

Exactly. That's why the law's an ass, and cretins like Acey have made a living out of it for ages.

@BBCScotlandNews: Roman Catholic priest gave £10,000 to alleged abuse victim, BBC Scotland reveals http://t.co/6yCZpwJn4i http://t.co/eZpvZZFQPd